The Student Room Group

Vinegar and magnesite

inegar can be used to neutralise magnesite, MgCO3, an ingredient in the table salt used for its anti-cacking properties. However in excess magnesite can have strong laxative properties. The reaction between the ethanoic acid in vinegar and magnesite can be represented by the following equation:
CH3COOH + MgCO3 = (CH3COO)2Mg + H2O + CO2
Morton Salt, Chicago, USA has 12 tonnes of salt containing 2% magnesite, they want to neutralise. Calculate the volume of your undiluted vinegar that would be required to neutralise all the magnesite in the salt.
please help!
thank you
:smile:
Reply 1
What are you finding difficult? What have you tried so far?
Reply 2
Original post by Pigster
What are you finding difficult? What have you tried so far?



My work out:
12 tonnes × 1000000/(1 tonne) = 12000000 g
2% of magnesite = (2/100) × 12 000 000 = 20 000 g
Mole of MgCO3 = (20000 g)/(84.3 g/mol) = 237.25 mol (Mr of MgCo3 = 84.3 g/mol)
Mole of CH3COOH = 237.25 × 2 = 474.50 mole
Volume of CH3COOH = (474.50 mol)/(1.0328 mol/dm3) = 459.43 dm3

don't know whether this is right :confused:
Reply 3
I love the way that you now tell us that the concentration of the undiluted vinegar is 1.0328 (which I'll bet is a derived value) and yet somehow expected us to do your homework for you!

Anyhoo, it looks like your method is correct. I haven't got my calculator out to check your math, though.
Reply 4
Original post by Pigster
I love the way that you now tell us that the concentration of the undiluted vinegar is 1.0328 (which I'll bet is a derived value) and yet somehow expected us to do your homework for you!

Anyhoo, it looks like your method is correct. I haven't got my calculator out to check your math, though.


i didnt tell you to answer my question but thank you for the support
p.s. it was the concentration i got from the undiluted vinegar titration i carried out which was needed. i don't realy use tsr so thanks.:smile:
Reply 5
A word of advice then...

Was the concentration actually 1.0328?

It was definitely not 1.0327 or 1.0.329?

Can you really state that many significant figures? Especially since you say that it was a figure based on a titration.
Reply 6
Original post by Pigster
A word of advice then...

Was the concentration actually 1.0328?

It was definitely not 1.0327 or 1.0.329?

Can you really state that many significant figures? Especially since you say that it was a figure based on a titration.


it didnt really state how many s.f to use.
Reply 7
So we go with what is sensible.
Reply 8
I think it would be sensible if you learnt some manners. You clearly dont know how to talk to people and you're no help.

Quick Reply

Latest